DOCSLIB.ORG

DIXON V R – PROPERTY in DIGITAL INFORMATION?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DIXON V R – PROPERTY in DIGITAL INFORMATION? ANUSHA WIJEWICKRAMA DIXON v R – PROPERTY IN DIGITAL INFORMATION? Submitted for the LLB (Honours) Degree Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington 2016 2 In 2015, New Zealand’s Supreme Court ruled in Dixon v R that digital files are property for the limited purposes of a computer misuse provision – s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court said it was distinguishing digital files from pure information, thus it was not challenging the long-standing legal position that information cannot be property. This paper analyses the Court’s purposive, conceptual and factual reasoning, ultimately concluding that a distinction between digital files and information is difficult to justify. It argues that the Court’s decision therefore actually erodes the traditional legal position. It concludes that Parliament, which can more fully explore policy considerations, might be better placed to determine whether digital files should be property. Potential ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision are also briefly outlined. Key words: property; digital files; information; Crimes Act 1961 s 249(1)(a); computer misuse I Introduction New Zealand's Supreme Court ruled in Dixon v R that digital files are not simply information, but are “property” for the purposes of s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.1 In doing so the Court expressly stated that it was not reconsidering the orthodox legal position that there is no property in pure information.2 Instead it used a purposive approach to determine Parliament's intent regarding computer misuse, and deemed digital files to be property for the limited purpose of s 249(1)(a). It supported this approach with some discussion of the factual characteristics of digital files, finding that they have a material presence. It also stated that digital files display some classic characteristics of property, being identifiable, transferable, capable of being owned, and capable of having value.3 This paper will firstly describe the facts of the case and the outcome in the District Court, where a jury was simply directed that digital files are property. It will then outline the reasoning of the Court of Appeal, which found that digital files are indistinguishable from information and thus incapable of being property. It will then examine the reasoning of the Supreme Court, which overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision. 1 Dixon v R [2015] NZSC 147. 2 Dixon v R (SC), above n 1, at [24]; Oxford v Moss (1979) 68 Cr App R 183. 3 Dixon v R (SC), above n 1, at [25] and [38]. 3 This paper will then explore the Supreme Court's position that digital files are sufficiently distinguishable from information to be labelled property. It will examine the Court's purposive, conceptual and factual rationales for its position and argue that, with respect, they fail to adequately distinguish digital files from recorded information. The Court's decision thus infringes on the orthodox position that there is no property in information, and does not provide an adequate basis for digital files to be property. Finally, this paper will highlight some potential ramifications of Dixon. It will conclude that with the distinction between digital files and information being tenuous, and the ramifications of Dixon being potentially widespread, it should be left to Parliament to expressly state whether or not digitally stored data should be property under the Crimes Act. II The Facts Jonathan Dixon was a bouncer employed by a firm providing security services for Base Ltd.4 Base had installed CCTV at its Queenstown business, Altitude Bar.5 During the 2011 Rugby World Cup, Base's CCTV cameras captured video footage of the England squad's vice-captain, who was married to British royalty, socialising with a woman at the bar.6 Dixon asked Base's receptionist to compile the footage, which she did, believing Dixon needed it for legitimate purposes.7 She saved the file on her work computer at the bar's reception area.8 Dixon downloaded the compilation file from that computer onto his own USB stick.9 He deleted the compilation file on the computer,10 however Base retained the original CCTV footage at all times.11 Dixon tried unsuccessfully to sell the compiled footage, then posted it online where it was picked up by the media.12 Dixon was subsequently charged with obtaining “property” under s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 4 Dixon v R [2014] NZCA 329, [2014] 3 NZLR 504 at [4]. 5 At [4]. 6 At [5]. 7 At [6]. 8 At [6]. 9 At [6]. 10 R v Dixon DC Invercargill CRI-2011-059-1122, 17 April 2013 at [14] as cited in Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [19]. 11 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [20]. 12 At [7]. 4 1961.13 Section 249(1) states:14 249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,– (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or (b) causes loss to any other person. Property is defined in s 2(1) of the Crimes Act:15 property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and any thing in action, and any other right or interest[.] In the District Court, Dixon's counsel argued that the compilation file did not fall within the definition of property in the Crimes Act, however Judge Phillips disagreed and directed the jury that the file was property.16 Dixon was found guilty. The Court of Appeal, however, unanimously held that the file could not be property because it was “indistinguishable in principle from pure information”, the orthodox legal position being that there is no property in pure information.17 It substituted a conviction for obtaining a benefit under s 249(1).18 Dixon appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, dismissing his counsel shortly before his appearance there.19 The Supreme Court therefore did not hear oral arguments on his behalf on the issue, though it was able to see his counsel’s written submissions.20 It overturned the Court of Appeal's decision and reinstated that of the District Court, asserting that digital files are property and not information for the purposes of s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.21 13 At [8]. 14 Crimes Act 1961, s 249(1). 15 Section 2(1). 16 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [11]–[12]. 17 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [31]. 18 At [49]. 19 Dixon v R (SC), above n 1, at [24]. 20 At [24], n 26. 21 At [72]. 5 III The Issue The issue for the courts was whether a digital file is property for the purposes of s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. IV The Court of Appeal's Decision The Court of Appeal noted that s 249 was one of several sections introduced in 2003, aimed at modernising Part 10 of the Crimes Act by establishing provisions against computer misuse.22 The Court noted that cl 19 of the Crimes Amendment Bill originally contained a different definition of property specifically for these offences:23 Property includes real and personal property, and all things, animate or inanimate, in which any person has any interest or over which any person has any claim; and also includes money, things in action, and electricity. However, upon Law and Order Select Committee recommendation that definition was abandoned, as it would result in two different definitions of property existing for different provisions in the same Act.24 French J speaking for the Court noted that instead, Parliament amended the existing definition of property in Crimes Act.25 The Court relied on the long-standing common law orthodoxy that there is no property in information, even confidential information.26 It did so because it considered that when amending the definition of property in 2003, Parliament must have been aware of the orthodox position, and would have expressly included computer data had it intended to change it.27 French J commented that instead, “the amendment was limited. It consisted only of the addition 22 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [14]; Crimes Act, ss 217–230; Crimes Amendment Act 2003. 23 Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) 1999 (322-2) cl 19 as cited in Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [17]. 24 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [17]. 25 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [16] and [35]. 26 See Oxford v Moss, above n 2; Stewart v R [1988] 1 SCR 963; TS & B Retail Systems Pty Ltd v 3Fold Resources Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 151, 239 ALR 117; Taxation Review Authority 25 [1997] TRNZ 129 as cited in Dixon v R (CA), above n 4; David Harvey “Theft of data? Judge David Harvey contemplates the decision in Dixon” [2014] NZLJ 354 at 355; Jennifer Davies Intellectual Property Law (4th ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012) at 96. 27 Dixon v R (CA), above n 4, at [35]. 6 of money and electricity”.28 In the absence of any express statutory direction therefore, the Court reasoned that case law supported a distinction between information, which cannot be property, and the medium it is stored on, which can be property.29 The Court conceded that a digital file has a material existence in a way that pure information does not.30 However it ultimately decided that information stored electronically on a computer is simply a “stored sequence of bytes” that cannot be meaningfully distinguished from pure information.31 French J acknowledged some criticism of the orthodox position.32 For instance, information may be very valuable.33 However she asserted that any illogicality was outweighed by policy, because the free flow of information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trade Secrets, Confidential Information, and the Criminal Law John
    Trade Secrets, Confidential Information, and the Criminal Law John T. Cross* The author examines the extent to which prop- L'auteur 6value le potentiel qu'a le droit crimi- erty offences in the criminal law can be used to nel de pr6venir l'appropriation malhonnete de police the misappropriation of trade secrets l'information confidentielle et des secrets and confidential information. After assessing commerciaux en ]a qualifiant d'atteinte au the long-standing debate on whether informa- droit de proprit6. L'auteur expose le long tion can be classified as property, he argues drbat sur la question a savoir si l'information that answering the question one way or the peut etre l'objet d'un droit de proprirtd; il con- other involves circular reasoning. When clut que dans un cas comme dans l'autre la judges label information "property," it is to raponse implique un raisonnement circulaire. enable them to grant the desired remedies. L'attribution du terme <<proprirt6 >>par les Courts should instead ask more directly juges depend du rsultat qu'ils veulent obtenir. whether certain information should be pro- Les tribunaux devraient plutrt centrer leur rai- tected under the circumstances. It follows that sonnement sur l'importance de prot~ger ou precedents holding that certain information is non l'information en question dans les circons- property in one area of the law should not be tances, sans se sentir lids par la jurisprudence authoritative in others. The article then ant~rieure qui aurait caractdris6 autrement ce explores efforts made in Great Britain, Canada meme type d'information dans un autre con- and the United States to apply criminal prop- texte juridique.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Review
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Salford Institutional Repository Page1 Criminal Law Review 2008 The Computer Misuse Act 1990: lessons from its past and predictions for its future Neil MacEwan Subject: Criminal law. Other related subjects: Information technology Keywords: Computer crime; Computer security Legislation: Computer Misuse Act 1990 s.1 , s.3 Police and Justice Act 2006 s.35 , s.36 *Crim. L.R. 955 Summary: The age of the internet has thrown down some real challenges to the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Recently, the Government made changes to this piece of legislation, in an attempt to meet two of those challenges--the proliferation of “ Denial of Service” (DoS) attacks, and the creation and dissemination of “ Hackers' tools” --and to fulfil international commitments on cybercrime. Yet some of these new measures invite criticisms of policy, form and content, and bring doubts about how easy to interpret, and how enforceable, they will be. Introduction Finally, after three aborted attempts to make changes to it within the last five years,1 the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990 has been amended; specifically, both added to and altered.2 The offence of unauthorised access to computer material, 3 formerly a summary offence, has now become an offence triable either way, and the offence of unauthorised modification of computer material 4 has been replaced by the offence of unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or recklessness as to impairing, the operation of a computer etc. The time is right for a close re-examination of this piece of legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1988-89
    CENTRE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES FIRST ANNUAL REPORT 1988-89 Table of Contents Introduction. The Work of the Centre. A Research projects. B Postgraduate study. C Relevant papers and publications by members of the Centre during 1988/9. D Seminars, Conferences and Continuing Education. Appendices Appendix 1 - Constitution of The Centre. Appendix 2 - Membership of The Centre. Appendix 3 - Centre Papers. • Submissions to the Law Commission Law Commission Working Paper No. 103 - Binding Over • Law Commission Working Paper No. 110 - Computer Misuse INTRODUCTION The Centre for Criminal Justice Studies was provisionally established in 1987 and was formally approved by the University in March 1988. Its object, as set out in its Constitution (see Appendix 1), is the pursuit of research and study into all aspects of criminal justice systems. This remit, as undertaken by the Executive Committee (see Appendix 2), has in practice included the encouragement of postgraduate students and research projects, and the arrangement of seminars and conferences. The Centre's 1 members comprise both lawyers and non-lawyers, and its work is generously assisted by an Advisory Committee, which consists of academics and practitioners in relevant fields of experience (Appendix 2). Professor Clive Walker Director Centre for Criminal Justice Studies University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT o Tel: +0044 (0)113 233 5033 o Fax: +0044 (0)113 233 5056 o email: [email protected] 10th July 1989 THE WORK OF THE CENTRE A Research projects Two research projects are currently in hand. (a) Reporting of Crown Court proceedings and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This project is funded by the Leverhulme Trust and is directed by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Practitioner's Guide to Global Investigations
    GIR Volume I: Global Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States Kingdom and the United in the United Investigations I: Global Volume Investigations Global Guide to Practitioner’s The Global Investigations Review The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations Volume I: Global Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States Third Edition Editors Judith Seddon, Eleanor Davison, Christopher J Morvillo, Michael Bowes QC, Luke Tolaini, Ama A Adams, Tara McGrath Third Edition 2019 2019 © Law Business Research The Practitioner’s Guide to Global Investigations Third Edition Editors: Judith Seddon Eleanor Davison Christopher J Morvillo Michael Bowes QC Luke Tolaini Ama A Adams Tara McGrath © Law Business Research Published in the United Kingdom by Law Business Research Ltd, London 87 Lancaster Road, London, W11 1QQ, UK © 2018 Law Business Research Ltd www.globalinvestigationsreview.com No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation, nor does it necessarily represent the views of authors’ firms or their clients. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publishers accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of November 2018, be advised that this is a developing area. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to: [email protected]. Enquiries concerning editorial content
    [Show full text]
  • Debugging Computer Crime
    DEBUGGING COMPUTER CRIME A 13-Year Analysis of the “Crimes Involving Computers” Provisions of the Crimes Act 1961. Amy Jessica Corkery A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the degree of Bachelor of Laws with Honours University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand October 2016 [email protected] i Acknowledgments To my supervisor, Associate Professor Margaret Briggs, a constant source of wisdom and inspiration and a champion of the ‘minimalist’ approach; To my parents, Frances and John, for their years of love and support; To my friends, my flatmates, and my fellow residents of 9N12, who have made this year so special; To Sean Mackay, proof-reader extraordinaire; And finally, to Waiana Mulligan, Nikky Fraser, and Jarred Griffiths, for always being there to keep me sane and smiling. ii Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter I: Background, Purpose, and Principles ....................................................................... 8 I Background .......................................................................................................................... 9 A “Computer System” and “Computer Crime” .................................................................. 9 B Responses ...................................................................................................................... 12 II Purpose and Scope of Regulation ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BLACKSTONE's GUIDE to the FRAUD ACT Edition: 1St Authors
    BLACKSTONE’S GUIDE TO THE FRAUD ACT Edition: 1st Authors: Simon Farrell, Nicholas Yeo & Guy Ladenburg ISBN: 0-19-929624-3 Publishers: Oxford University Press Publication Date: 29 March 2007 The Fraud Act 2006, which came into force 15 January 2007, is an important new statute which creates new offences of fraud that can be committed in three ways. Because all deception offences under the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978 are abolished, with dishonesty being more important than the mind of the victim, it is vitally important for all those involved in the day to day criminal law to be fully aware of its contents. For that reason this book is a very good guide, which in addition to covering the law, old and new, also provides the statute in full along with other germane statutes, Reports of Royal Commissions and related matters such as Protocol’s issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Appendix 6 lists other fraud legislation viz, the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, Copyright Design & Patents Acts 1988, Computer Misuse Act 1990, Social Security Administration Act 1992, Criminal Justice Act 1993, Trademarks Act 1994, Value Added Tax Act 1994, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Appendix 9 lists sample indictments, which may assist Prosecutors and Custody Sergeants to write up the charge. The book covers much of the law and discussions very succinctly. There is a great deal to cover with such a complex subject as fraud. Prosecutors and Police who have lived with the problem of the ‘deception’ offences under the Theft Acts for decades will recognise a good deal as the authors discuss the pre 1968 position with cases such as 'Preddy' and 'Gomez', minds will be cast back to the hours spent reading 'Ellemes', 'Hinks', 'AG’s Reference No 1 of 1985', the 'Ghosh test for dishonesty' and the words subjective and objective, 'Oxford v Moss' and 'Dura', 'Childs' .
    [Show full text]
  • Data-Related Legal, Ethical and Social Issues
    Data-related legal, ethical and social issues Privacy & Data Protection (Cyber)-Security Breach-related obligations Supply of Digital Content & Free Flow of Data Intellectual Property Rights Services Data Sharing Obligations Data Ownership Data Sharing Agreements Anonymisation & Open Data Liability Pseudonymisation Trust, Surveillance, Discrimination Competition and Free Will Transparency, Consent, Control and Personal Data Ownership August 2019 Updated version Contents EU-funded projects 1 Foreword 2 Glossary 3 General Overview 6 Privacy and Data Protection 10 Anonymisation/ pseudonymisation 17 (Cyber-)security 24 Breach-related obligations 31 Supply of digital content 36 Free flow of data 40 Liability 46 Intellectual property rights 52 Open data 59 Sharing obligations 65 Data ownership 71 Data sharing agreements 77 Competition 84 Trust, Surveillance and Free Will 88 Discrimination 94 Transparency, Consent, Control and Personal Data Ownership 99 Looking beyond 105 EU-funded projects This publication was written in the context of the LeMO Project (www.lemo-h2020.eu). Certain chapters have also been based on the findings of the DEFeND, THREAT-ARREST and TOREADOR projects under the Horizon 2020 programme, of which Bird & Bird LLP is also a partner. The LeMO (Leveraging Big Data to Manage Transport Operations) project aims to provide recommendations on the prerequisites of effective big data implementation in the transport sector. Transport researchers and policy makers today face various challenges including legal and ethical ones as they work to build tomorrow's transportation systems. LeMO addresses these issues by investigating the implications of the use of big data to enhance the economic sustainability and competitiveness of the European transport sector. Grant agreement number 770038.
    [Show full text]
  • Cyberspace Identity Theft: the Conceptual Framework
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by MCSER Journals Online and Printed (Mediterranean Center of Social... ISSN 2039-2117 (online) Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 6 No 4 S3 ISSN 2039-9340 (print) MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy August 2015 Cyberspace Identity Theft: The Conceptual Framework Nazura Abdul Manap Anita Abdul Rahim Hossein Taji Faculty of Law, The National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Malaysia Corresponding Author: Hossein Taji Email: [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s3p595 Abstract The present age of technological advances has extended the reach of crimes into the Internet. Nevertheless, while the Internet may have led to the emergence of wholly new crimes, it has mostly brought about new ways of committing preexisting crimes. (Garner, 2000) For example, although it is often called a 21st century phenomenon, (Hoar, 2001) cyberspace identity theft is, in fact, not a new type of crime. (United Nations, Handbook on Identity Related Crime, 2011)Long before the emergence of the Internet, identity thieves stole people’s identities through dumpster diving by searching for personal identifying information such as social security and bank account numbers in the trash left outside people’s homes. The identity thief uses information relating to the identity of another person’s such as name, address, telephone number, mother’s maiden name, social security number, social insurance number, health card number, bank account information, driver’s license number and date of birth. It is stealing someone’s identity information to commit theft, fraud or other crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • WJEC/Eduqas a Level Law Book 2 Answers
    WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 answers Chapter 1: The law of contract Activity 1.1 Legal authority Legal authority Rule s9 Services must be provided at a reasonable price. s10 An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. The consumer’s legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory s11 quality. s20 Goods must be fi t for purpose. s23 Goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a service does not satisfy criteria, trader should redo the inadequate s49 element at no extra cost. Where repeat performance of the service is not possible, the consumer s50 can obtain a price reduction. s51 Goods must be as described. Retailer must be given the opportunity to repair or replace defective goods s52 outside the 30 days of purchase. s55 Services must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any information given to the consumer before the service is provided is s56 binding. s62 Services must be provided within a reasonable time. Activity 1.2 Implied terms These are mini scenarios for which the students can use the IDA structure to construct mini answers using the relevant statute provisions. 1 WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 answers Activity 1.3 Application question (taken from WJEC/Eduqas SAMs material) 1. The question is taken from WJEC/Eduqas sample assessment material. Refer to https://www.eduqas.co.uk/qualifi cations/law/A-level-Law-SAMs.pdf, page 35, for indicative content of a response. 2. Use the approach outlined in the SAM that covers Q1 to respond. Discus it with a classmate if you want to.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil and Criminal Remedies for Intellectual Property Infringement
    Civil and criminal remedies for intellectual property infringement A Lexis ®PSL document produced in partnership with Squire Sanders This practice note provides an overview of the remedies, both civil and criminal, which can potentially be deployed against those who infringe UK intellectual property rights (IPRs). Legal nature of IPRs The legal nature of IPRs determines what English law remedies are available for their infringement. With the exception of rights in confidential information, IPRs are a form of personal moveable property. They are often described as being ‘incorporeal’ as they cannot be seen or touched. This legal classification is set out for patents in the Patents Act 1977, s 30(1) (PA 1977, s 30(1)), for trade marks in the Trade Marks Act 1994, ss 22, 24(1) (TMA 1994, ss 22, 24(1)), for registered designs in the Registered Designs Act 1949, ss 15A, 15(B) References: PA 1977, s 30(1) (1) (RDA 1949, ss 15A, 15(B)(1)), for copyright in the Copyright, Designs and Patents TMA 1994, ss 22, 24(1) Act 1988, ss 1(1), 90(1) (CDPA 1988, ss 1(1), 90(1)) and for UK unregistered design RDA 1949, ss 15A, 15(B)(1) right in sections CDPA 1988, ss 213(1), 222(1). CDPA 1988, ss 1(1), 90(1), 213(1), 222(1) Community IPRs (such as community trade marks and community designs) References: Council Regulation (EC) owned either by an entity domiciled in the UK or by an entity not domiciled in 6/2002, art 27(1) any EU Member but with an establishment in the UK are also personal moveable Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009, art property.
    [Show full text]
  • Canada's Computer Crime Laws: Ten Years of Experience
    11 Canada's computer crime laws: Ten years of experience Martin P.J. Kratz Bennett Jones Verchere 1000, 10035-105 Street, Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6M 2K4 403 421 8133,fax402 421 7951, email [email protected] Abstract The role of the criminal law is to act as a deterent to conduct considered so damaging that the intervention of the state is warranted. Increasingly computer security issues have sought to use the power of criminal sanctions to deter abusive behaviour. This the approach taken by Canada. An additional set of civil and quasi-criminal remedies is also available under Copyright law. The paper reviews Canada's experience with both the ctiminal and copyiight sanctions in the context of computer abusive behaviour including that canied out through use of the internet. The importance of an effective computer use policy is emphasized throughout. Keywords Computer clime, computer abuse, software piracy, telecommunications abuse or misuse, criminal law, copyiight law, theft, fraud, computer use policy, computer abuse task force 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of Canada's computer crime laws under the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, Ch. C-46, as amended and the quasi-ciiminal sanctions under the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, Ch. C-42, as amended, which may provide a basis for prosecuting or detening some forms of computer abuse. Canada's computer crime laws were proclaimed law in December 1985 and since that time society has seen several new types of antisocial behaviour including creation and release of computer viruses and a variety of misconduct relating to use of the internet and other networks.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Leading Cases of United Kingdom
    APPENDIX 3 LIST OF LEADING CASES OF UNITED KINGDOM App. 3—List of Leading Cases of United Kingdom CONSTITUTIONAL LAW S. Party Name Citation No. 1. A & Ors v. Secretary of State for the (2005) UKHL 71 (2005) 3 WLR 1249 Home Department 2. A v. Secretary of State for the Home De- (2004) UKHL 56 (2005) 2 AC 68, partment (2005) 2 WLR 87 3. Abbassy v. Commissioner of Police of (1989) EWCA Civ 7 (1990) 1 WLR 385 the Metropolis 4. Air Canada v. Secretary of State for (No.2) (1983) 2 AC 394 Trade 5. Airedale Hospital Trustees v. Bland (1992) UKHL 5 (1993) 2 WLR 316, (1993) 1 All ER 821, (1993) AC 789 6. Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation (1968) UKHL 6 (1969) 2 AC 147 Commission 7. Anns v. Merton London Borough Coun- (1977) UKHL 4 (1977) 2 All ER 118, cil (1978) AC 728 8. Associated Provincial Picture Houses (1947) EWCA Civ 1 (1947) 2 All ER Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corp 680, (1948) 1 KB 223 9. Attorney General for Hong Kong v. Ng (1983) UKPC 2 (1983) 2 All ER 346, Yuen Shiu (1983) 2 AC 629, (1983) 2 WLR 735 10. Attorney General for New South Wales (1932) UKPC 1 (1932) AC 526 v. Trethowan 11. Attorney General v. De Keyser’s Royal (1920) UKHL 1 (1920) AC 508 Hotel Ltd. 12. Attorney General v. Guardian Newspa- (1987) UKHL 13 (1987) 1 WLR 1248, pers Ltd. (No.1) (1987) 3 All ER 316 13. Attorney General v. Guardian Newspa- (1988) UKHL 6 (1990) 1 AC 109, pers Ltd.
    [Show full text]